[HN Gopher] The Apple M1 compiles Linux 30% faster than my Intel i9 ___________________________________________________________________ The Apple M1 compiles Linux 30% faster than my Intel i9 Author : geerlingguy Score : 122 points Date : 2021-06-01 19:12 UTC (3 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.jeffgeerling.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.jeffgeerling.com) | dathinab wrote: | Funny thing is the newest i7 from Intel (10nm) also might compile | it noticeable faster then a i9 MacBook. | | There are very few if any Laptops out there which handle a i9 | well. And Apple is kinda well known to not do a very good job | when it comes to moving heat out of their Laptops. This is often | blamed on Intel due to their CPU producing to much heat, but | there are other Laptops which do handle this CPUs just fine... | | Anyway that doesn't change that Apples M1 are really good. | bhouston wrote: | Regarding the displays. I use a dual screen setup on the mini | (hdmi and display port) and it is perfect. So it is either a | hardware issue in the cables, the mini or the monitor. I use | currently use mono price 32 inch hdr monitors. | bhouston wrote: | I would suggest swapping the monitor and the cables separately. | I do think there is an issue with one of them. | geerlingguy wrote: | I've tried two different (known-good) HDMI cables and only have | the one DisplayPort cable (which works fine on the i9 MBP and | even on my 13" MacBook Air)... it seems to be something funky | with the mini only. | | At least with the DisplayPort cable, the dropouts don't happen, | it's just annoying to have to manually turn off my monitor | every time I walk away lest it go into the on/off/on/off cycle | while the Mac is asleep. | | I did order a CableMatters USB-C to DisplayPort cable today to | see if maybe going direct from the USB4->monitor will work | better than TB3->CalDigit->DisplayPort->monitor. | secondcoming wrote: | Man, I have huge DisplayPort issues when using my Dell 7750 | with an external monitor. It can take a couple of reboots | before it'll send a signal to it. The OS can see the monitor, | but it just won't use it. It's incredibly annoying. | rsynnott wrote: | Their DP problem sounds vaguely familiar; I'm almost certain I | had the same thing years ago with a 2014 MBP. Can't remember | what the fix was, though... | 1_player wrote: | Note: 30% faster than a thermally challenged i9 on a MacBook Pro, | not a desktop one. Given the comments on similar threads, I feel | this needs to be mentioned. | systemvoltage wrote: | Why? It's all the more apples-to-apples as a comparison because | the form factor remains the same and thermal limitations are | similar between two system. | | Why would you want to compare a desktop class i9 with a 10 watt | M1 chip? | weatherlight wrote: | Not sure why you are being downvoted. | programmdude wrote: | The title is implying M1 is always better than every intel, | given that I9 is the best intel (consumer) chip. | | It's been known for years that apple has been limiting the | intel chips by providing insufficient cooling. I don't overly | care about how fast an M1 chips in a macbook is compared to | an intel chip in a macbook. I want to know how fast an M1 is | compared to a desktop I9 (given mac minis have M1 chips now), | or compared to a properly cooled laptop latest-gen I9. | | All this experiment shows is that insufficiently cooled | processors perform worse than sufficiently cooled ones. It's | a classic example of cherrypicking data. Admittedly, my | solution would be different to the article's author. Instead | of using a badly cooled laptop to compile stuff, I'd setup a | build server running linux. | monocasa wrote: | Because there are a lot of issues with i9s in those form | factors that leads to less perf than even an i7 from the same | generation. | | There was a Linus Tech Tips the other day about how even | current gen Intel laptops can see better perf on an i7 than | an i9. It looks like the i9s simply don't make sense in this | thermal form factor and are essentially just overpriced chips | for people who want to pay the most to have the biggest | number. | jayd16 wrote: | Its also a 9th gen i9, a two and a half year old chip. | Bancakes wrote: | You know what's interesting, China and Russia have been | struggling for years to get something on the level of intel | Westmere. And here comes Apple out of the blue with a | proprietary arch and hardware emulator; cinebench showing it | to be around a x5650 xeon (Westmere). Easy. | | M1X and M2X in the making, too?! | nguyenkien wrote: | Apple have at least 13 years experience. | GloriousKoji wrote: | Not to dismiss the hard work the engineers at apple put in | but China and Russia hasn't poached as many engineers over | the years as Apple has. | nosequel wrote: | That's correct, China just poaches the tech when it lands | on their soil without paying a thing. At least Apple pays | those they've poached a salary. | strangemonad wrote: | Definitely not out of the blue. This has been a long and | steady march | mhh__ wrote: | Not only do Apple have decades of experience both as | themselves and PA Semi, they can also probably outspend | efforts that this countries could do politically (Russia | yes, China probably not, but you get the idea) _especially_ | when weighted against their ease of acquiring information. | ethbr0 wrote: | Also Intrinsity. | bayindirh wrote: | > And here comes Apple out of the blue with a proprietary | arch and hardware emulator... | | Apple is designing processors and GPUs at least since | iPad2's tri-core GPU. They're neither coming out of the | blue, nor newbies in this game. | dathinab wrote: | It's not out of the blue and not even surprising. | | Look at this from this POV: | | - Apple started on custom ARM many years ago. | | - Apple isn't really smaller then Amd, and Amd also rewrote | and restructured their architecture some years ago. | | - Apple hired many greatly skilled people with experience | (e.g. which worked before with Intel) | | - Apples uses state of the art TSMC production methods, | Intel doesn't and the "slow" custom chips from China and | Russia don't use that either as they want to have chips | controlled by them produced with methods controlled by | them. (TSMC production methods are based on tech not | controlled by Taiwan). | | - Apples had a well controlled "clean" use-case, where they | bit by bit added more support. This includes that they | could drop hardware 32 bit support and don't have any | extensions they don't need for their Apple products, this | can make thinks _a lot_ easier. On the other hand x86 has a | lot of old "stuff" still needing support and use cases are | much less clear cut (wrt. thinks like how many PCI lanes | need to be supported, how much RAM, etc.). This btw. is not | limited to their CPUs but also (especially!) their GPUs and | GPU drivers. | | So while Apple did a grate job it isn't really that | surprising. | dylan604 wrote: | >China and Russia have been struggling for years | | Sometimes it's hard to figure out all of the things left | out of the plans that were stolen. Some engineer saw | something not working, looked at the plans, and then | noticed where the plans were wrong. The change gets | implemented, but the plans don't get updated. Anyone | receiving the plans will not have those changes. Becareful | of those plans that fall of the back of trucks. | [deleted] | PragmaticPulp wrote: | I will never understand why Intel stuck with the i3, i5, i7, | and later i9 branding across so many generations. | | I've lost track of how many times I've heard people wonder why | their 10-year old computer is slow. "But I have an i7" | lostgame wrote: | _Thank you_ for saying this. | | Honestly - it's not even the i3, i5, i7, i9 thing. It's the | fact that two i5s, etc; can be _ludicrously_ different in | terms of performance from one another because of the sub- | generations within the named generations. | | Yes - it's ridiculous that I could buy an i7 ten years ago, | buy an i7 today, and yet - of course - they are absolutely | nothing close to each other in terms of performance. | | IIRC the Pentium line did not make this mistake. (Though the | Celeron line could be very confusing, if I recall correctly.) | caspper69 wrote: | To play devil's advocate, I can buy a Corvette today that | is nothing like the one from ten years ago too. | | In fact, lots of things are like this. | Dylan16807 wrote: | How much does the top speed differ? | Invictus0 wrote: | Corvettes like all cars are identified by their model | year. Hence there is no confusion that a 2021 Corvette is | "better" than a 2011 Corvette. | dylan604 wrote: | Are the '21 models better than an '11? I don't think | anyone would say they'd rather have a '21 than a '69. | NoSorryCannot wrote: | Almost everyone knows that the model year is part of the, | idk, "minimal tuple" for identifying vehicles, though, | and you can count on it always appearing in e.g. | advertisements. | | In CPU land, the architecture codename or process node | might be part of such a "minimal tuple" but these are | frequently omitted by OEMs and retailers in their | advertising materials. | throwaway894345 wrote: | The point is that people think the numeral in the brand | is something like a version number in which larger | numerals are better. I.e., an i7 is always better than an | i5 when in fact a new i5 might exceed the performance of | a dated i7 for some particular metric. | the_arun wrote: | Instead they could have just called them i2017, i2018... | going with year of manufacturing. That way it is useful to | make some sense out of performance with an understanding iN | is always better than i(N-1) | Dylan16807 wrote: | That gives you the opposite problem, where someone gets a | brand new dual core and is confused by it being slower. | londons_explore wrote: | Best is to give them a number that approximately maps to | performance. | | The "pro" version might be an i8, while the budget | version is i3. In a few years time, the pro version will | be up to i12 while the budget version is now i8. | | You have model numbers for when someone needs to look up | some super specific detail. | vetinari wrote: | Year of manufacturing says nothing; you can have two | different gens manufactured in the same year, one for | lower price tier and the other for the higher one. Just | like Apple still produces older iPhones, same thing. | | Instead, you have designations like "Intel Core i7 8565U | Whiskey Lake" or "Intel Core i7 10510U Comet Lake". The | first one is 8th generation (=8xxx), the second one is | 10th generation (10xxx, but the 14nm one, not the 10nm | "Ice Lake"), and most OEMs do put these into their | marketing materials and they are on their respective web | shops (these two specifically were copied from two | different Thinkpads X1 Carbon models). | bluejekyll wrote: | Except this is an article about the Apple MacBook Pro 16" | which came out aprox. 1 year ago (edit, 1 and a half years | ago). | utopcell wrote: | still. | danpalmer wrote: | To go another layer deeper in analysis though, it is still >20% | faster on the thermally throttled M1 MacBook Air. That's a | laptop without a fan, and it's still faster than an i9 with a | fan. | sillysaurusx wrote: | This right here. I was so skeptical of getting an Air. And | yes, during heavy compile sessions with make -j8, it can hang | after a half hour or so. But (a) you can make -j7 instead, | and (b) it's impressive how long it lasts without hitting | that point. | | I've been thinking of doing the cooling mod too, where you | pop open the back and add a thermal pad to the cpu. It | increases conductivity with the back of the case, letting you | roast your legs while you work, aka cool the cpu. :) | dylan604 wrote: | Do any of the laptop cooler systems with fans help the M1 | Air thermal issues? I used one on an older 2011 MBP, and it | definitely helped that laptop. It might have just been a | placebo of getting the laptop off of a flat surface to | allow air to circulate around it, but the fans could only | help in that. | Bancakes wrote: | Being thermally challenged is part of the design, huh... | ajross wrote: | This was a famously bad CPU/cooling design, actually. LOTS of | people complained about it at the time. You can place blame | on either party according to your personal affiliation, but | similar Coffee Lake chips from other vendors with more robust | (and, yes, louder) cooling designs were running rings around | this particular MacBook. | Traster wrote: | It's a problem of intels own making - marketing vastly | different capabilities under the same brand in order to segment | the market. | frozenport wrote: | or Apple doing a bad job with the previous generation | patmorgan23 wrote: | Or both | tedivm wrote: | The 2019 macbook ironically had better heat dissipation | than the previous generations, but it's still pretty bad. | | We can blame Apple for using chips that are too intense for | their laptops, and we can blame Intel for making garbage | chips that can't really perform in real world cases while | spending a decade not bothering to innovate. Apple at least | is moving away from Intel as a result of all of this, and | I'm really impressed with how well the M1 transition has | been going. | chippiewill wrote: | Ehh. I take the view that Apple has been intentionally | sandbagging their laptops for a while to facilitate an | ARM transition. | | Not to say that M1 isn't amazing, but I think Apple has | been preparing for this for a while and needed to make | sure it would succeed even if their ARM CPUs weren't | quite as groundbreaking as they turned out to be. | ethbr0 wrote: | Possibility 1: Apple was making do with what Intel gave | them, because their profit margins didn't care and they | were busy naval gazing into their post-Jobs soul | | Possibility 2: Apple had a master plan to intentionally | torpedo performance in order to make their future first- | party chips appear more competitive | Dylan16807 wrote: | What Intel supplied was the bigger problem, but Apple was | definitely not trying to make the chips perform well. | They were hitting thermal limits constantly, and more | directly toward "sandbagging" the recent macbook airs | have a CPU heat sink that _isn 't connected to anything | and has no direct airflow_. They could easily have fit a | small array of fins that the fan blows over, but chose | not to. | reader_mode wrote: | Compared to other amazing Intel laptops of similar form | factor ? All Intel laptops are insanely loud and generate | tons of heat for any reasonable performance level. They | are just generation(s) behind in process, plus they start | from an architecture designed for servers and desktops | and cut down, Apple went the other way so it's reasonable | they will do better on thermals and power consumption. | rsynnott wrote: | For _five years_? | | Or longer, really; while everyone, of course, loves the | 2015 MBP, they're mostly thinking of the integrated GPU | one; the discrete GPU version was pretty thermally | challenged. Arguably Apple's real problem with the | post-2015 ones was that Intel stopped chips with fast | integrated GPUs, so Apple put discrete GPUs in all SKUs. | bluejekyll wrote: | Are there any benchmarks you can point to that have a | similarly spec'd laptop (ideally similar size & weight | too) that would show that Apple is sandbagging? | rvz wrote: | Good! The M2 will be even more faster. Can't wait to skip the M1 | then. | rowanG077 wrote: | I really hope Apple can control themselves with these CPUs. The | M1 has the perfect thermal envelope for the Macbook Pro. No | thermal throttling ever. I greatly fear the future were Apple | starts going down Intels path were you buy a sick CPU on paper. | But once you actually try to do anything with it it throttles | itself into the ground. | klodolph wrote: | Historically, this is one of the reasons Apple went with | Intel CPUs to begin with. The PowerPC G5 was a nice processor | but never ended up with a thermal envelope acceptable for a | laptop. So from 2003 to 2006, you could buy a Mac G5 desktop, | but if you wanted a laptop, it was a G4. 2006 was the | beginning of the transition to Intel, who made better | processors that Apple could put in laptops. | | It's not the only reason Apple switched to x86, but it | perhaps the most commonly cited factor. | geerlingguy wrote: | I complain about how hot the i9 gets... but then I remember | the period where Apple was transitioning from G4/G5 to | Intel Core 2 Duo chips... in both cases they were _searing_ | hot in laptops, and Apple's always fought the battle to | keep their laptops thin while sometimes sacrificing | anything touching the skin of the laptop (unlike most PC | vendors, who are happier adding 10+mm of height to fit in | more heat sinks and fans!). | selectodude wrote: | Heck, even before that with the 867MHz 12" Powerbook G4. | Pretty sure that thing is why I don't have children. | secondcoming wrote: | My i7-10875H pretty much stopped thermal throttling when | running CineBench R23 when I changed the thermal paste to | Kryonaut Extreme. | rowanG077 wrote: | How about running CineBench R23 and a GPU workload | continuously for an hour? I'm willing to bet it will | throttle. That little chip you have there is not only a | CPU. It's also a GPU. Utilizing half of it's function and | then saying it doesn't throttle is not that impressive. | Still there are many Intel laptops that throttle even by | going half power. | | What laptop do you have? If it's a gaming or workstation | laptop those are generally much better cooled then thin & | lights like macbook pros. | geerlingguy wrote: | With my luck, Apple's going to release some new devices that | will blow the M1 Macs I just bought last week out of the | water... that is the way of things, with tech! | | I'm still trying to unlearn my fear and trepidation surrounding | the use of my laptop while not plugged into the wall. I was | always nervous taking the laptop anywhere without the power | adapter in hand, because 2-3 hours of video editing or | compilation work would kill the battery. | | The Air can go a full day! | cpr wrote: | If they announce the rumored M2 Macs next week, you might be | within the 15 days to return the M1's and order (with plenty | of waiting) the M2's. | dogma1138 wrote: | The M1 is great indeed but one thing holds true for Apple | never buy a first gen device, 3rd Gen onwards is usually | where you get to see them becoming viable for long term | support. | | While the M1 is great there are clearly issues to be ironed | out even if it's just the limited bandwidth available for | peripherals. | | I'm also betting on major GPU upgrades over the next 2 | generations. | kstrauser wrote: | I mean, _kind of_ , but it seems that the main issue here | with the M1 is that it's only 30% faster than an i9. If I | were buying a new Mac today, I would only consider an M1 | system. It seems to be better at literally everything _I_ | want to do with it than the Intel equivalent. | | While M2 will undoubtedly be better yet, I see no downside | to jumping aboard M1 today _for must people who aren 't | running specialized software_. | paxys wrote: | Plus, I don't think Apple has really released a "Pro" M1 | laptop yet. The current M1 MacBook Pro has max 13 inch | screen, max 16 GB RAM, max 2 TB storage, only 2 | Thunderbolt/USB ports, only a single external display | supported, no external GPU supported. | | If I had to guess I'd say they meant to call this just | MacBook but tacked on the Pro since they discontinued the | non-Pro line entirely. | eyelidlessness wrote: | I think it's pretty likely M2 (or M1X, or whatever they brand | it) MacBook Pros will be announced next week at WWDC, given | the recent rumors generally coalescing. They may not be | released right away but most rumors have suggested a summer | release. Not that you should regret your purchase, but for | (future) reference it's a really good idea to check the | rumors when considering a non-urgent Apple purchase. | vmception wrote: | I really can't wait for my fleeting happiness of seeing | their next processor! | | The rumors really describe the perfect machine for me and | many people's use cases. | flatiron wrote: | macOS though? I don't feel very productive using their | OS. I would rather have a slightly slower laptop and feel | more productive. But I don't compile anything locally or | anything. It's all in the cloud and stuff. | selectodude wrote: | Sounds like you're not the target market then. Apple | generally tries to sell computers to people who feel | productive using their OS. | geodel wrote: | This is surprising. Are we really running out of people | who would try run datacenter and an electron App on Apple | laptop and then tell us here how these machines are not | for professional users. | vmception wrote: | I will absolutely try to do that with a M2 processor and | 64gb RAM per device | nodesocket wrote: | You can return it (within 30 days) and get the new | generation. I am gonna upgrade my 16" MBP Intel i9 as soon as | I can buy the Apple Silicon in 16". | geerlingguy wrote: | Never thought of that... but I'll cross my fingers then and | see what Apple releases. | | These Macs may still be perfect for my needs though. 10G on | the mini means I skip the giant external adapter, and the | Air doesn't have the dumb Touch Bar. | OldTimeCoffee wrote: | Having substantially more L1 and L2 cache per core but no L3 has | to be a massive part of why the M1 performance is so good. I | wonder if Intel/AMD have plans to increase the L1/L2 size on | their next generations. | amackera wrote: | Can you help me understand why removing L3 cache would speed | things up? Genuinely curious! | | Increasing L1 and L2 make intuitive sense. | jessermeyer wrote: | I think the idea is by removing L3 has allowed for an | increase of both L1/2. | lanna wrote: | I think he meant "despite not having L3" | cogman10 wrote: | Removing L3 frees up transistors to be spent on L1/L2. On a | modern processor the vast majority of transistors are spent | on caches. | | Why this might help, ultimately, because the latency for | getting something from L1 or L2 is a lot lower than the | latency from L3 or main memory. | | That said, this could hurt multithreaded performance. L1/2 | are used for 1 core in the system. L3 is shared by all the | cores and a package. So if you have a bunch of threads | working on the same set of data, having no L3 would mean | doing more main memory fetches. | vbezhenar wrote: | Apple will invent L3 for workstation-level CPU. | duskwuff wrote: | Wild theory: for workstation-class systems, the 8/16 GB of | on-package memory becomes "L3", and main memory can be | expanded with standard DIMMs. | hajile wrote: | AMD went from 64kb in Zen 1 down to 32kb in Zen 2/3. Bigger | isn't always better. It only matters if the architecture can | actually use the cache effectively. | | M1 has a massive reorder buffer, so it needs and can use more | L1 cache. It's pretty much that simple. | monocasa wrote: | It's more complicated on x86 because of the 4k page size. The | L1 is heavily complicated if it is larger than the number of | cache ways times the page size, since the virtual->physical | tlb lookup happens in parallel. 8 way * 4kb = 32kb. | out_of_protocol wrote: | Compiling stuff is not correct benchmark since end result is | different - binary for arm vs binary for x86. | | Cross compiling is not good as well because one platform has | disadvantage of compiling non-native code | eyesee wrote: | Is there an advantage to compiling native vs non-native code? | Certainly during execution I would expect that, but I'm not | clear why that would be true for compilation. | | Agreed that a better benchmark would be compiling for the same | target architecture on both. | postalrat wrote: | Maybe you could cross compile on both systems and see if it | actually does make a difference. I'm doubting it but don't | have much to base that on. | Someone wrote: | Non-native can be a bit harder for constant folding (you have | to emulate the target's behavior for floating point, for | example), but I think that mostly is a thing of the past | because most architectures use the same types. | | What can make a difference is the architecture. Examples: | | - Register assignment is easier on orthogonal architectures. | | - A compiler doesn't need to spend time looking for auto- | vectorization opportunities if the target architecture | doesn't have vector instructions. | | Probably more importantly, there can be a difference in how | much effort the compiler makes for finding good code. | Typically, newer compilers start out with worse code | generation that is faster to generate (make it work first, | then make it produce good code) | | I wouldn't know whether any of these are an issue in this | case. | sp332 wrote: | True but this is addressed in the article. If what you need is | code that runs on a RPi, this is a meaningful comparison. | [deleted] | aduitsis wrote: | Regarding the point in the article mentioning the fans starting | to spin at the drop of a hat: The macbook pro i9 16", albeit a | fabulous device in almost every aspect, has a bug: Connecting an | external monitor at QHD will send the discrete graphics card into | >20W of power draw, whereas usually it's about 5W. At 20W for the | graphics card alone, it's not difficult to see that the fans will | be spinning perpetually. | jscheel wrote: | This problem is so infuriating. There was a thread the other | day about it. It's clearly a bug, but it seems to be one that | nobody wants to take responsibility for. | RicoElectrico wrote: | Huh. I have Dell Latitude 5501 and it's almost always in | hairdryer mode when connected to the dock (on which there's | 1920x1200 HP Z24i and 2560x1440 Dell U2515H). Your description | seems suspiciously similar. | | Different graphics, though - MX150. | asdff wrote: | I wonder if anyone who prefers to dock their laptop has thought | about sticking it in a mini freezer under their desk | geerlingguy wrote: | It gets worse--if you are charging the battery, you can | immediately see the left or right side Thunderbolt ports get a | lot hotter, fast. Probably because piping 96W through those | ports heats things up a bit. | | The thermal performance on the 2019 16" MacBook Pro is not | wonderful. | fpgaminer wrote: | > I know that cross-compiling Linux on an Intel X86 CPU isn't | necessarily going to be as fast as compiling on an ARM64-native | M1 to begin with | | Is that true? If so, why? (I don't cross compile much, so it | isn't something I've paid attention to). | | The architecture the compiler is running on doesn't change what | the compiler is doing. It's not like the fact that it's running | on ARM64 gives it some special powers to suddenly compile ARM64 | instructions better. It's the same compiler code doing the same | things and giving the same exact output. | znpy wrote: | there's no reason for a cross-compiler to be slower than a | native compiler. | | if your compiler binary is compiled for architecture A and | emits code for an architecture B, it's going to perform the | same as a compiler compiled for an architecture A and emitting | code for the same architecture A. | cle wrote: | Well to get a little nuanced, it depends on if the backend | for B is doing roughly the same stuff as for A (e.g. same | optimizations?). I have no idea if that's generally true or | not. | karmakaze wrote: | Well there's one. If people tend to compile natively much | more often than cross-compile, then it would make sense to | spend time optimizing what benefits users. | mlyle wrote: | There are some small nits, where representation of constants | etc can be different and require more work for a cross- | compiler. | [deleted] | tedunangst wrote: | In theory, yeah. In practice, a native compiler may have | slightly different target configuration than cross. For | example, a cross compiler may default to soft float but native | compiler would use hard float if the system it's built on | supports it. Basically, ./configure --cross=arm doesn't always | produce the same compiler that you get running ./configure on | an arm system. As a measurable difference, probably pretty far | into the weeds, but benchmarks can be oddly sensitive to such | differences. | herpderperator wrote: | No, it's not true. Just a common misconception because people | believe it's some sort of emulation. | dan-robertson wrote: | Some cross-compilation may need some emulation to fold | constant expressions. For example if you want to write code | using 80 bit floats for x86 and cross-compile on a platform | that doesn't have them, they must be emulated in software. | The cost of this feels small but one way to make it more | expensive would be also emulating regular double precision | floating point arithmetic when cross compiling. Obviously | some programs have more constant folding to do during | compilation than others. | messe wrote: | Is constant folding going to be a bottle neck? In this | particular instance, in the kernel, floating point is going | to be fairly rare anyway, and integer constant folding is | going to be more or less identical on 64-bit x86 and ARM. | rubyist5eva wrote: | How does a virtualized ARM build, of Ubuntu for example, run in | Parallels vs. the same workload on an x86 virtual machine in the | same range? | | If my day to day development workflow lives in linux virtual | machines 90% of the time, is it worth it to get an M1 for | virtualization performance? I realize I'm hijacking but I haven't | found any good resources for this kind of information... | xxpor wrote: | This is very dependent on setup. If your IO is mostly done to | SR-IOV devices, your perf will be very close to native anyway. | The difference would be about the IOMMU (I have no idea if | there's a significant difference between the two here). If | devices are being emulated, the perf probably has more to do | with the implementation of the devices than the platform | itself. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-06-01 23:00 UTC)